On Wednesday, retired St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven R. Ohmer presided over a hearing to set the ground rules and timeline for Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s case to remove Sheriff Alfred Montgomery from his elected position.
Retired Judge David Mason represented Montgomery along with attorneys David C. Mason, Matt Ghio and Justin Gelfand.
The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General Gregory Goodwin and at least five other assistant attorneys general.Â
Although Ohmer made it clear the hearing was designed to develop an “informal road map” for an eventual trial, the prosecution immediately launched into its case against the sheriff.
The state’s allegations included Montgomery failing to take inmates for medical treatment, and his alleged use of sheriff’s department staff to transport his children to school.
Mason responded by providing the judge with the Supreme Court’s “Rules of Professional Conduct,” stating that lawyers are prohibited from making “false statements,” and are supposed to correct any statements they “know to be false.”
Addressing Bailey’s allegation that the sheriff “failed to take inmates in for medical treatment,” Mason provided a contract “that the state should have known about,” that explicitly dictates that the city, not the sheriff’s department, is responsible for “administering, managing and supervising healthcare” for inmates.
Mason then proceeded to challenge Bailey’s claim that Montgomery hired his half-brother as a deputy, by providing Ohmer with birth certificates to dispute the charge.
Regarding Bailey’s allegation that the sheriff “misused public resources” by ordering a deputy to pick up his children from school, Mason argued that the person who picked up the children was “off-duty” and was so well known by his kids they called her “grandma.”
Not-so-subtly inferring that the prosecution was providing “false statements,” Mason thundered: “There are no violations here, your honor, and I’m going to call them out on it every time!”
Bailey, as he did when he issued quo warranto action against St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner in 2023, has initiated the same process with Montgomery.
“Quo warranto” has been defined as “a legal action used to challenge someone’s right to hold a public office or franchise.” It was not traditionally used to address misconduct in office but rather to determine if the person is legally entitled to hold his/her position.
Attorney Michael P. Downey, who represented Gardner, said the “Missouri Revised Statute” 106.220 pertaining to “forfeiture of office” expanded the standard definition. The statute states, in part, that “any person elected or appointed… who shall be guilty of any willful or fraudulent violation… shall thereby forfeit his office…”
The “who shall be guilty of…” portion of that statute still seems questionable in Bailey’s case because Montgomery hasn’t been found guilty of any charges.
In 1978, St. Louis Sheriff Benjamin L. Goins was removed via a quo warranto writ filed by St. Louis Circuit Attorney George Peach (D). That action, however, followed Goins’ conviction on federal racketeering and tax evasion charges.
In 1999, then-Attorney General Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon (D) filed a quo warranto petition after an investigation of corruption involving Sheriff Tom Russell of the Miller County Sheriff’s department.
Ohmer eventually shut down the back and forth between the lawyers and went about the business of setting dates for “discovery and motions,” eventually landing on a court date of November 10 at 11:00am.
Until then, Ohmer ruled, “the sheriff will continue with his duties in that office.”
“I think that is a drastic step,” Ohmer said Bailey’s first removal effort.
“I don’t think we’re there at this point.”
The case timeline is as follows:
- July 21: Sheriff’s office submits its answer to the quo warranto
- Aug. 29: All discovery completed
- Sept. 19: All motions filed
- Nov. 10: Bench trial begins
- Additional status hearings, if needed, on Aug. 29, Sept. 26, Oct. 29
Sylvester Brown Jr. is the Deaconess Foundation Community Advocacy Fellow.
Bailey is definitely racist. He’s removing black people.
We find that the people spoke by electing the Sheriff. No one AG bigot should attempt to remove him. Leave it to the next election.